Toke 'Em If You Got 'Em!

As part of my venturing into 20th century revenues, I decided to pick up a few MaryJane stamps. I decided to start with the two high denomination stamps with receipt tabs (RJM4 and RJM8), since I could pick them up at a (comparatively) decent price.

These were part of the Smithsonian deaccession material that I mentioned in another post.

I was a little concerned with the toning at the left and right sides of the RJM4... until I noticed that virtually all examples I could find images of have similar toning. There is a small paper inclusion at center. All examples will have staple holes at left, the top and bottom stamps from the pane of 4 will have 2 holes, and the middle stamps will each have 1.

The RJM4 is ungummed as issued, and the RJM8 is full gum never hinged.

The RJM4 you see fairly often on the market, the RJM8 considerably less so.

The full pane shows all of the staple holes from being stapled into booklets as mentioned.



The booklet cover also shows the layout of the staple holes.



Note the same toning on this pane as on the single.

Dang it! Now I've got the munchies!

That's far out man!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smit...p-180958823/

Don't Bogart those stamps my friend.

Now just try and find a used copy.

There are two used copies of RJM1 recorded. A used block of four of RJM5 on an official order form was pictured on a cover of The American Philatelist, September 199 , current whereabouts unknown. Given that the order form was for 36 ounces, there were probably another 32 $1 stamps on the reverse of the order form.

The RJM1 is indicated as existing used in Scott, value $15,000 in italics. None of the other RJMs are indicated as existing used.

I remember when the first RJM1 was found; it was buried in a revenue large lot of no particularly special interest otherwise about 40 years ago.

Tax stamp apparently used "on cover."

Jim

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthope...le-535511742

Alas, Jim, a forgery of the stamp. Here is what I wrote in American Stamp Dealer & Collector about this bottle about three years ago -

I was recently directed to an item listed on a popular internet auction site, a bottle with a $5 marihuana stamp from the issue of 1962. If authentic, this would be a great discovery. But the marihuana tax stamps were used on forms to submit an order for marihuana to the government, the only legal source for marihuana. So immediately the bottle requires a closer look. Why was the $5 stamp on the bottle when the regulations required that these be used on the marihuana order forms? I'd say that is strike one against its authenticity.

Okay, let's suppose that somehow the stamp did come to be used on a compounded prescription bottle. The bottle has a label on it for Wright's Pain & Nerve Elixir Compound. The label states that cannabis indicia was 17%. The presence of the $5 marihuana tax stamp indicates the tax pays for 5 ounces of marihuana indicia; if that is only #8537; of the container, the container must have contained 30 ounces, almost a quart. The stamp is about 1 #8540; inches high and from the illustration the bottle is less than double that height. How many quart bottles do you have that are less than three inches tall? That seems to me to be strike two against its authenticity.

Finally, marihuana was not available for compounding medical prescriptions during the years that this stamp was in use (1962 - 1971)! Recall that cannabis indicia was removed from the U. S. Pharmacopeia in 1942. Strike three?

The person who alerted me to the item was also suspicious that the stamp on this bottle was a photocopy, the perforations not looking like they are authentic. The top edge looked like it was a straight edge from a scissors and that a crude job of perforating was done. To me this item waved too many red flags to attract any interest. Apparently some people did not see this item as I saw it. There were 39 bids and the successful bidder paid $227.00 plus $5.50 shipping!

revenuecollector,
Is there a way to detect if this RJM2 has a fake overprint, or if it is authentic? I believe this to be a stamp from the Smithsonian release, but I have no receipt.
I paid very little for this stamp, but if it is forged, it would seem to be a waste of a nice MNH R244!

You could always submit it to the American Philatelic Society to get it expertized. Offhand the overprint on your illustration seems to have a lot of white dots. None of the images on Eric Jackson's website show any little white dots. I am somewhat skeptical of your stamp.

Yet there are consistent lettering similarities in this example, such as the A of TAX being lower in relation to the other two letters. Either APEX or the PF could certify it

Gentlemen,
Thank you for looking at my stamp and for your observations. I have uploaded a PF certificate image of Eric Jackson's certified copy that is for sale. I do see white spots in the lettering of this stamp as well, which I believe could be caused by slight underinking, or perhaps the black ink did not adhere as well to the white background as it did to the blue ink. It can be seen more clearly by zooming the image. I am leaning toward sending my stamp for certification, but I would like to hear from others before doing so.

I'm looking for Dave. Dave's not here man.

Jeremy